Apologies for absence were received from District Councillor A Friend, County Councillors G Lymer, S C Manion and D P Murphy, and Mr P I Carter (Sandwich Town Council).

It was noted that there were no substitute members.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 June 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The Highways and Parking Team Leader (HPTL) introduced the report which outlined proposals for coach parking on Dover seafront.  In response to concerns raised by Councillor D G Cronk about the risk to pedestrians because of the size of the spaces at Waterloo Crescent, the HPTL advised that modelling had been carried out which demonstrated that buses would be able to fit into the spaces, albeit with driver caution. 

RESOLVED:   That it be recommended that the proposals for coach parking, as set out in the report and shown at Appendices B and C, be implemented by Kent County Council sealing the necessary Traffic Regulation Order. 

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The HPTL introduced the report which outlined proposals to prohibit parking along the length of Fitness Fields, the access road leading to the new leisure centre.  Following a query from Councillor Cronk, Councillor N J Collor advised that scheduled buses would be dropping passengers off at the bus-stop and not using the new road.  Other buses or coaches would be able to use spaces in the new car park.  He went on to clarify that there would be some sort of height restriction at the car park entrance to prevent lorries using it overnight.   The HPTL clarified that it was not possible to install red lines on the road as a special regulation was required.

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.  

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The HPTL clarified that the proposal had been brought back to the Board following formal advertisement.  It was now for the Board to consider the outcome of consultation and, if approved, recommend the proposal for sealing by Kent County Council (KCC).  In response to a suggestion that Astor Drive should be excluded from the scheme, several members commented that this would be a mistake.  The HPTL advised that it was practice to see how things settled down once a new scheme had been introduced and, if there was a knock-on effect on other roads, these would be dealt with as appropriate, or as and when residents requested.

RESOLVED:   That it be recommended that the proposal for a residents’ parking scheme, as set out in the report and shown at Appendix A, be brought into effect by Kent County Council sealing the necessary Traffic Regulation Order.

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The HPTL introduced the report which set out proposals for a residents’ parking scheme covering Laureston Place and Victoria Park in Dover. Informal consultation had been undertaken and the majority of respondents had supported the scheme.  It was now proposed that the scheme should be formally advertised.  If any objections were received, the scheme would come back to the Board for a further recommendation. 

RESOLVED:   That it be recommended that the residents’ parking scheme, as set out in the report and shown at Appendix A, be formally advertised.  Any objections received will be referred back to a future meeting of the Dover Joint Transportation Board for further consideration prior to making final recommendations.

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The HPTL advised Members of a correction to the report in that eight letters of support had been received.  Surprisingly, a large number of objections had been received, apparently as a result of people changing their minds following active petitioning.  Councillor P M Brivio commented that, since 2015, a lot of effort had gone into developing the scheme in consultation with residents, and it was perplexing why some had now changed their minds.  She raised concerns about the way in which residents had been lobbied, and called for a further letter to be sent in order to clarify why there had been a change of mind as this could not be explained by, for example, changes in occupancy.   Councillor M J Ovenden agreed that there were doubts over the way in which the petition had been conducted given that residents had been so vociferous about the difficulties of parking at a Planning site visit she had attended the year before.

The HPTL clarified that, provided house numbers and a name were included on petitions, they were considered to be a valid form of representation.  He also confirmed that the report was based solely on residents’ responses and not those of businesses.

Councillor G Cowan reiterated the importance of listening to ward Councillors, particularly when Councillor Brivio had done so much work with residents and Officers. Councillor S S Chandler recommended that, given the significant discrepancy between the first and last consultation responses, individuals should be re-consulted rather than the petition being validated.  It was agreed that the HPTL would write to residents of the blue area shown in the appendix to the report, and that the wording of the letter would be agreed with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board. 

RESOLVED:   That residents of the blue area shown in Appendix A to the report be re-consulted on proposals for a residents’ parking scheme covering Priory Hill and Priory Grove.

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The HPTL introduced the report which outlined proposals to include Northcote Road in an existing residents’ parking scheme, in particular the results of formal consultation.  Given that the majority of residents who responded had supported its inclusion, it was recommended that the scheme be implemented.

RESOLVED:   That it be recommended that the proposal to include Northcote Road within the extended Zone L Residents’ Parking Scheme, as detailed in the report and shown at Appendix A, be brought into effect by Kent County Council sealing the necessary Traffic Regulation Order.

To consider the attached report of the

The Dover District Manager (DDM) presented the report which outlined KCC’s strategy for implementing a new code of practice for the management of highway maintenance that had come into effect in October 2018.  The new code was less prescriptive and relied more on risk-based assessments.  This would lead to a more pragmatic approach being taken when prioritising repairs.  For example, highway repairs in rural areas would generally be regarded as lower priority unless there was a risk to property.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

To consider the attached report of the Head of Highway Asset Management, Kent County Council.

The DDM introduced the report that detailed the arrangements in place between KCC and Dover District Council to provide a winter service in the event of snow.  Councillor Collor praised farmers who played an important role in delivering the winter service plan.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

To consider the attached report of the Director of Highways and Transportation, Kent County Council.

Members received the report which provided an update on schemes that had been programmed for delivery in 2018/19.  The DDM advised that ongoing works along the A256 were part of improvement works included in the capital budget.  In response to Councillor P D Jull, the DDM agreed that there was a need to address drainage issues before public rights of way works to the ER261 near St Radigund’s Abbey Farm went ahead. 

Councillor T A Bond complained about the length of time taken to repair two street-lights and unnecessary form-filling.  The DDM advised that the LED replacement scheme was nearly complete and lamps would become easier to monitor. There had also been a transition period between the old and new contractors which might explain the delays.  In response to queries, she undertook to find out whether the replacement scheme had been a success in Kent overall, and whether lights were dimmed as happened in some areas.  Councillor Cowan commented that safety was paramount and lights should not be dimmed unless a majority of residents were in favour of doing so.      

RESOLVED:   That the report be noted.

It was moved by Councillor T A Bond and duly seconded and

RESOLVED:       That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the business on the grounds that the item to be considered involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the attached report of the Director of Environment and Corporate Assets.

The HPTL introduced the report which outlined details of eleven disabled parking bay applications, and proposed the removal of two bays which were no longer needed.  Applications A to K met all the criteria and their formal advertisement was therefore recommended.  However, Application L had proved controversial and the Board was requested to make a recommendation on this.  Whilst it was common practice to mark bays before they had been formally approved, it was recognised that this had caused problems on this occasion.  Furthermore, it was accepted that the parking bay’s original location had not been the most appropriate and, for this reason, it would be moved, subject to the Board’s agreement and further consultation with the applicant and residents.  KCC would need to be consulted since a section of the existing double yellow lines would need to be moved to accommodate the bay in the new location.

In respect of Application L, Councillor Bond referred to the poor standard of painting which had caused disagreement and ill-feeling amongst residents.  Moreover, the district and county councillors for the ward had no knowledge of the bay and were therefore unable to assuage residents’ concerns.  Councillor M R Eddy commented that Deal Town Council had been opposed to the bay due to pressure on parking in this area and its distance from the applicant’s home. 

RESOLVED:   (a) That it be recommended that, in respect of Application L, further consultation be undertaken with the applicant and local residents on a proposal to move the proposed disabled person’s parking bay to the other side of the ‘dog bones’.

                        (b) That it be noted:    

(i)            That Applications A to K would be formally advertised and, in the event that no objections are received, they will be sealed by Kent County Council.  (Should any objections be received during the consultation process, the applications will be discussed with the Chairman of the Dover Joint Transportation Board for a final decision.)

(ii)           That Items M and N would be formally advertised with the intention of removing them and, in the event that no objections are received, their removal will be sealed by Kent County Council.